From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
Date: | 2025-04-09 20:30:24 |
Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uDyGW1omWqWkxyW8NB1qzsKmXhnoMtzTBeRzSd4DMatQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> What I am saying is n_ins_since_vacuum should not account for aborted inserts.
>
> It does and from what I can see it should. You need to explain why it should not. More importantly, convincingly enough to change five year old behavior.
n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced to trigger autovacuum based on the #
of inserts
committed, and does not care about about dead tuples in this formula.
If I have a transaction that rolledback an insert of a million rows,
I expect autovacuum to kick in based on the fact there are now 1 million
n_dead_tup. n_ins_since_vacuumm is not relevant to the formula
for this case.
In other words, the reason n_ins_since_vacuum was introduced is to freeze
(committed) rows, so it should not need to track dead rows to do what it intends
to do.
--
Sami Imseih
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-04-09 21:01:10 | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-04-09 20:19:12 | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |